W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > August 2006

Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 August 9

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:50:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302043F95C6@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


Attendees
---------
 Paul
 Glenn xx:24
 Leonid
 Richard xx:15
 Philippe
 Henry
 François 
 Daniel xx:26

Guests for the C14N discussion
------------------------------
Thomas Roessler
Jose Kahan

[7 organizations (7 with proxies) present out of 11]

Regrets
-------  
Norm
Konrad
John

Absent organizations
--------------------
A-SIT (with regrets)
CDAC
Lew Shannon 
John Cowan (with regrets)


Konrad sends regrets August 16.

Glenn send regrets August 16, 23.

Jose send regrets for August 23.

> 1. Accepting the minutes from the last telcon [3] and
>    the current task status [2] (have any questions, comments,
>    or corrections ready by the beginning of the call).

Accepted.

> 
> 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> 
> 
> 3.  C14N 
> 
> At the f2f, we decided to produce a W3C WG Note documenting 
> the current situation and issues and problems.
> 
> The latest version of this note is at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html
> 

How to support C14N 1.1 within XML signatures?

The note says that XML signatures should use the 1.1 algorithm.

Henry asked Thomas how he felt about this.

Thomas felt the current plan was correct and that we could
do this right away without issuing any new Rec.  We would
make some clarifications in the Note.

ACTION to Thomas and Jose:  Ensure we get appropriate
wording in the Note.

ACTION to Richard:  Review section 5 in the Note.

> ----
> 
> The latest editor's draft of C14N 1.1 is at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/05/WD-xml-c14n11-20060510.html
> 
> Richard sent some related email at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jun/0056
> 
> Unclear what is the current status/action on which
> we're awaiting.

Richard has some email from Konrad that he still needs 
to answer.

ACTION to Richard:  Reply to Konrad's email, esp
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0022
as amended by
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0023

> 
> 4.  xml:base, [baseURI], and IRIs.
> 
> At the f2f, we had CONSENSUS to change the 
> xml:base spec to make it clear we allow IRIs as the 
> value of xml:base. We also want to allow IRIs in the 
> infoset [baseURI] information item.
> 
> One paragraph in the Infoset says the baseURI may
> have unescaped characters, but elsewhere it says
> the baseURI follows XML Base which points to RFC 2396.
> If we change XML Base, we shouldn't have to change
> the Infoset spec much.
> 
> 
> 5.  XLink update.
> 
> XLink is now in CR--published at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-xlink11-20060328/ 
> 
> Norm sent some email about his test suite at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0066
> 
> Henry explains that Norm created some code (to check xlinks
> and xml:base) as well as test documents.  Henry put up the
> documents, but he needs to work with W3M to put up the code.
> Otherwise, we could just put up the output.
> 
> ACTION to Henry:  Continue to put up the XLink test suite
> including the code if feasible.
> 

Henry reports that progress is being made.

> Paul wrote a draft PR request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0001
> 
> We think there is nothing else to do before PR except
> creating an up to date Disposition of Comments.
> 
> ACTION to Norm:  Create an XLink DoC.
> 

Re: Boris' comment as discussed at our last telcon, Henry thinks
we decided not to do anything, but he's not sure, so we need to
wait to hear what Norm thinks.  Henry things Norm took an action
to contact Boris, but we need Norm to confirm.

> 
> 6. XML errata.  The published 1.0 errata document is [8], the
>    published 1.1 errata document is [9], and the new (public)
>    Potential Errata (PE) document is [7]. 
> 
> XML 1.0/1.1 PERs were published on 2006 June 14 with a 
> PER end date of July 12.
> 
> ACTION to Francois:  Produce Rec-ready versions of the specs.
> 

To be done within a day or two incorporating PLH's patent corrections.

> 
> 7. Namespaces in XML.
> 
> NS 1.0/1.1 PERs were published on 2006 June 14 with a 
> PER end date of July 12.
> 
> ACTION to Richard:  Produce Rec-ready versions of the specs.
> 

To be done within a day or two incorporating PLH's patent corrections.


> ACTION to Richard:  Record Anne's issue/proposed resolution
> in the Namespace PE document.
> 
> 
> 8. Xinclude Rec was published 2004 December 30 at:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/
> 
> Our XInclude potential errata document is at:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/proposed-xinclude-errata
> 
> Daniel has updated the Errata document at
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/xinclude-errata 
> 
> Daniel has drafted XInclude 2nd Edition with all 
> the errata (including the IRI one) applied. Result is 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423.html
> with a diff version at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/04/XInclude/REC-xinclude-20060423-r
> eview.html
> 
> Still need to handle errata document for the new edition
> and other front matter.
> 
> Paul sent a draft PER request at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006May/0044
> 
> The current plan is to publish XInclude 2e and send it for 
> PER during the last week of June [*** needs revision ***].
> 
> DV reports that there are a few changes in the XInlude 
> errata that could benefit from a test suite. 
> 
> ACTION: DV to propose new XInclude tests.
> 
> 
> 9.  Associating stylesheets--awaiting TAG action.
> 
> Henry reports that the HTML CG has been discussing this
> for a while.  They are developing a draft statement of
> the issue, and Chris Lilley will raise this at the XML CG.
> 
> Chris started the discussion on the XML CG list--see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2005Jul/thread.html#15
> The XML CG will continue to discuss it for a while.
> 
> 
> 10.  Henry raises that RFC 3023 is out of date and the draft
> replacement has expired.  
> 
> Chris has gotten the source and made the changes.
> 
> There is a draft at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley
> -xml-02.tx
> t
> that can be reviewed now with comments sent to the XML Core
> mailing list and/or Chris Lilley.
> 
> Paul sent some comments on 3023bis to the XML CG at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0026
> 
> Henry says Chris is going to take the XML CG input outlined at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2006Apr/0019
> and produce another draft.
> 
> Chris and Henry also are backing "xpointer scheme" down 
> from "registered" to "pending" in the registry.
> 
> We will now await a new draft from Chris.
> 
> When 3023bis becomes a reality, we might have some
> specs that need updating for the reference, but we
> don't expect any major changes.
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core
> [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Core#tasks
> [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Jul/0021
> [7]
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/02/proposed-xml10-3e-and-xml11-errata.html
> [8] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata
> [9] http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V11-1e-errata
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 2006 15:50:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:34 GMT